Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 13

Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Further Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Case No.:1:20-cv-01104H- ES Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 13

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANGE SAMMA et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Civil Action No. [ J

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF MARGARET D. STOCK

I, Margaret D. Stock, declare as follows:

1. I am a member of the Alaska Bar and the managing attorney of the law firm Cascadia

Cross Border Law Group in Anchorage, Alaska. I am also a retired Lieutenant Colonel in

the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve. I previously taught at the United States

Military Academy, West Point, New York, for nine years, and I have also taught on a

part-time basis in the Political Science Department at the University of Alaska

Anchorage. I have been admitted to the practice of law since 1993 .

2. As an attorney and a graduate of the , I have practiced in the area of

immigration and citizenship law for more than twenty-five years. I have represented

hundreds of businesses, immigrants, and citizens seeking to navigate the difficult maze of

the U.S. immigration system, and I volunteer regularly to handle "pro bono" cases with

the American Immigration Lawyers Association Military Assistance Program (AILA

MAP). In 2009, I concluded work as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 13

Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, which was headed by Jeb Bush and

Thomas F. "Mac" Mclarty Ill. Prior to my transfer to the Retired Reserve in June 2010,

I worked for several years on immigration and citizenship issues relating to military

service while on temporary detail to the U.S. Army Accessions Command, the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and the United States Special

Operations Command. I am also a recipient of a 2013 Fellowship from the John D. and

Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for my work relating to immigration law and

national security. Finally, I am the author of the book "Immigration Law and the

Military," now in its second edition.

3. Over the course of my career, I have regularly encountered members of the military who

are facing possible deportation or removal from the United States due to alleged

immigration law violations. Often these individuals face deportation or removal because

the three different immigration agencies (Immigration and Customs Enforcement

("ICE"), Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services ("USCIS")) have different policies with regard to their treatment of military

personnel who are alleged to have violated immigration laws. For example, ICE often

encounters military members when doing interior enforcement. ICE has in the past had

policies that disfavor placing military members into removal proceedings. Unfortunately,

however, these policies seem to change with the attitude of the top political officials at

ICE and are therefore unpredictable.

4. CBP typically encounters military members at the airport or at a land port-of-entry, and

sometimes refuses admission to military members whose immigration papers appear not

to be in order, or places them into removal proceedings at the border. For example, Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 4 of 13

I once represented a military member who was placed into removal proceedings at the

San Francisco airport because he flew into the United States from Japan, was not on

military orders, and was in possession of a green card that CBP determined had been

"abandoned." He was able to retain counsel and I was able to get his naturalization

approved, whereupon the immigration judge terminated the removal proceedings. While

generally CBP agents are supposed to follow the statutory directive of 8 USC § 1354,

which exempts non-citizen service members from passport and visa requirements when

entering or leaving the United States, some CBP agents have been trained with regard to

this statute, and some have not. Others read the statute very narrowly and do not apply

its provisions where the military member is not traveling on military orders.

5. USCIS is the most problematic immigration agency from the perspective of military

members. USCIS does not have any official policy that requires the agency to review a

person's military service before placing the person into removal proceedings;

accordingly, many of the cases that I have encountered involve referrals to removal

proceedings by USCIS officers. It is very common lately, for example, for USCIS

Asylum Officers to refer current service members to removal proceedings if the USCIS

Asylum Officer decides that the service member did not timely file an asylum

application, or for a USCIS Field Office to refer a military member with a conditional

green card to removal proceedings because USCIS has not approved the military

member's pending I-751 Petition to lift the conditions on the service member's lawful

permanent residence.

6. I have represented numerous service members in deportation and removal proceedings

over the course of my career. For example, early in my career as an attorney I represented Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 5 of 13

an Alaska National Guard member who was facing deportation by the old Immigration &

Naturalization Service ("INS") because he had paid an Anchorage municipal fine for

having driven onto a school parking lot in Anchorage with a lawfully owned firearm. 1 At

various points in my career I have represented military members who were in removal

proceedings but whose removal proceedings were terminated after they naturalized. 2 The

Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security take the official position

that they are permitted to enforce immigration laws against currently serving members of

the United States Armed Forces and they do not "drop charges" because someone is

currently serving in the military. Typically, a military member facing removal is required

to defend against the charges, which usually requires the person to retain private counsel,

often at great expense to the service member.

7. Based on my knowledge and prior experience representing immigrant service members,

Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and 2 are at risk of being placed in removal proceedings and

deported, notwithstanding their ongoing military service.

8. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 enlisted in the through the Military Accessions

Vital to the National Interest ("MAVNI") program. She was eligible to enlist in the

MAVNI program as a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA")

program. However, her DACA status has expired, and she currently does not have lawful

immigration status. Due to the Department of Defense policy she is challenging in this

lawsuit, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 has not obtained a certification of honorable service and is

therefore unable to apply for expedited naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1440.

1 All firearms offenses are deportable/removable offenses under U.S. immigration laws, no matter how minor. 2 Unlike civilians, military members and veterans are by law allowed to naturalize while in removal proceedings. Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 6 of 13

9. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is at risk of being placed into removal proceedings if any of the

immigration agencies notice that she lacks a valid immigration status. The current

administration has incentivized its immigration agencies to place individuals into removal

proceedings if they are out of status and are encountered by immigration agents.

10. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 enlisted in the United States Army as a conditional permanent

resident. After enlistment, she applied to remove the conditions on her permanent

residency and obtain a "permanent" Green Card. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2's interview with

USCIS to remove the conditions on her permanent residency was scheduled shortly

before her ship-out date to basic combat training. In reliance on advice she received from

her military recruiter and in expectation of naturalizing through the military, she chose

not to attend the interview. Due to the Department of Defense policy she is challenging in

this lawsuit, Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 has not obtained a certification of honorable service and

is unable to apply for expedited naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1440.

11. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 is very much at risk of having her conditional lawful permanent

residence terminated and being referred for removal proceedings to the Department of

Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR"). USCIS has a policy of

terminating the lawful permanent residence status of immigrants who do not timely file

an 1-751 or who are deemed to have "abandoned" their 1-751 petition by failing to show

up for a scheduled interview. USCIS does not take into account a person's active duty

military service when terminating the person's conditional lawful permanent residence

status. An example of a very similar case can be found in the record of the May 20, 2008

hearing of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border

Security, and International Law, at which a Navy sailor named Karla Rivera testified. I Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 7 of 13

was involved in assisting Ms. Rivera, who found herself in removal proceedings after

USCIS terminated her conditional lawful permanent resident status when she failedto

timely file an I-751 form.3

12. If the names or other personally-identifying information about PlaintiffsJane Doe 1 and 2

are released, they are at risk of being placed in removal proceedings and deported. To

protect against these harms, they should be allowed to proceed under pseudonyms.

13. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Statement of Karla Arambula De

Rivera presented at Immigration Needs of America's Fighting Men and Women: Hearing

Before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and Int'l

Law 110 Cong. 52 (2008) and available at https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/wp­

content/uploads/2008/05/Rivera080520.pdf.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April U, 2020.

Margaret D. Stock

3See Exhibit 1. Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 8 of 13

Exhibit A to Declaration of Margaret Stock to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms & to Seal Personally Identifying Information

Case No.:______Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 9 of 13

STATEMENT OF

AIRMAN KARLA ARAMBULA DE RIVERA, U.S. NAVY

Before the

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

20 MAY 2008

Not for publication until Released by the House Committee on the Judiciary Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 10 of 13

Not for publication until Released by the House Committee on the Judiciary

STATEMENT OF

AIRMAN KARLA ARAMBULA DE RIVERA, U.S. NAVY

Before the

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

20 MAY 2008

Not for publication until Released by the House Committee on the Judiciary

1 Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 11 of 13

Chairwoman Lofgren and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to

provide you an overview of my experience as an immigrant to the United States.

My name is Karla Arambula de Rivera. I am a native of Mexico. I was brought to live in the United States as a little girl and have lived here ever since. I

married a U.S. citizen in 2004 and became a conditional permanent resident that was set to expire in two years. In March of 2007, I enlisted in the Navy. In July of 2007, I was supposed to apply to adjust my status to that of a lawful permanent resident, removing the conditions. While in A school in Pensacola,

Florida, I went to Navy Legal Service Office Central where they helped me to file the I-751, to adjust my status based on my marriage to a citizen. This form was returned due to a post-dated check. I returned to Navy Legal Service Office

Central where I was advised I could file instead an N-400 to become a naturalized citizen based on my military status. Navy Legal Service Office

Central filed the N-400. I then reported to the USS CARL VINSON in August

2007. The VINSON checked on my immigration package to find out that the

Nebraska Service Center had no record of me filing the N-400. The VINSON helped me file a new N-400 in December 2007. In January 2008, I was sent a

Notice to Appear in Immigration Court in Los Angeles, California, due to the fact that my status was terminated because I failed to file the petition to remove the conditions (based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen). My hearing date was on

February 28, 2009. I went to my new local legal assistance office, Navy Legal

Service Office Mid Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia. With their help, I filed a Motion

2 Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 12 of 13

to Change Venue to Arlington, Virginia, but the court would not rule on that

motion until the day of the hearing, which required me to travel to California. At

the hearing I was fortunate to be represented by pro bono counsel who had

helped me file my original paperwork for residency. The counsel asked the

judge to terminate the proceeding based on the Forman Memo put out by U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement which states that ICE should not initiate

removal proceedings against military members who are eligible for

naturalization under sections 328 or 329 of the INA. Despite the fact that I had

an N-400 application pending based on my military service, ICE objected to the termination and the judge would only grant the motion written by Navy Legal

Service Office Mid Atlantic to change venue to Arlington. I have a new hearing date set for July 1, 2008 in Arlington. Navy Legal Service Office Mid Atlantic helped me find an organization that would provide an attorney for free and got me started toward citizenship. I have an interview with the Norfolk Field Office for my naturalization scheduled for May 27, 2008. Hopefully, by the time my hearing in Arlington comes, I will be a citizen and this nightmare will be behind me. This situation has been extremely difficult for me both professionally and personally. As an enlisted member of the Navy, stationed on board the USS

CARL VINSON, a carrier, that frequently deploys, I am worried about letting my shipmates down and working out of my rate if left behind during deployment, which would have an effect on my military career. I know the ship will ensure that I make the hearing, but it is difficult for them and for me. I have also had to

3 Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 13 of 13

spend my own time and money traveling to Los Angeles for the removal hearing. I am grateful that I have had the assistance of Navy legal and opportunities to find pro bono legal services to help with this complex issue. If it hadn’t been for their help, I would not have been able to afford legal counsel on my own.

Thank you for your continued support.

4